🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <415olt$d6@jobes.sierra.net>, rayvd@sierra.net (Ray Van Dolson)
wrote:

> An OS doing something first doesn't necessarily mean it does it better now.
> Win95/NT and even OS/2 are far superior operating systems to the MacOS System
> 7.5 even if Mac pioneered many of the technologies..  PC OS vendors simply
> took some of the Mac's best points and improved upon them!  Now we'll see if
> the Mac can keep up (quality wise if not quantiy-wise) with Copland.

Only one problem with this analysis--you're defining "superior operating
system" from a computer-geek perspective.

While you could (and probably should) argue that NT (Possibly OS/2,
also--I'm not very familiar with it) is STRUCTURALLY better than MacOS, I
don't believe that makes it a better OS. In my mind, the best OS is the
one that allows me (and my employees) to get the most work done for the
least amount of money. That has been demonstrated (repeatedly) to be
MacOS.

-- 
 ------------------------------------------------
 Regards,
 Joe Ragosta
 docjoe@interramp.com

 100% Chemical -- and proud of it.

 Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any form, in whole or in part. Copyright, Joseph Ragosta, 1995

 License to distribute this post is available to Microsoft for $1000. Posting without permission constitutes an agreement to these terms.

 Any network provider not owned or operated in whole or in part by Microsoft may use this message at no charge.